Per Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member

For the reasons cited in the Affidavit the delay of 46 days in filing the present First Appeal is sufficiently explained and is condoned.

2.       Aggrieved by the order dated 09.04.2019 in Complaint Case No. CC/13/33 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short the “State Commission”), Canara Bank  (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) preferred the present First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”).  By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint directing the Bank to refund all the amounts which had been withdrawn on the basis of four subject cheques total amounting to Rs.18,45,000/- within 30 days from the date of the order along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date when the amount was withdrawn till the date of credit of the same in the Saving Bank Account of the Complainant. It was also ordered that in the event of non-crediting of the amount within the stipulated period of 30 days, then the awarded amount would carry interest @ 9% p.a. instead of 6% p.a.  A sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation along with Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation were also awarded.

3.       Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the First Complainant,  a doctor by profession, and a resident of United Kingdom since 2010 and the Second Complainant, his wife, a resident of Nagpur, had a joint Savings Bank account bearing No. 1404101011476 with the Bank at its Ramdrashpeth Branch, Nagpur since 15 years.  The Bank had issued a cheque book containing cheques from Sl. No. 789761 to 789780 in the month of April, 2011. It is averred that out of the said cheque book, Complainants had used some cheques.  On 15.03.2012 the Second Complainant  received a phone call from the Chief Manager of the Bank who informed her that one cheque had come for clearing from the account of the Complainants and that there was some discrepancy in the said cheques.  He asked the Second Complainant as to whether to clear the said cheque or not.  Second Complainant informed the First Complainant who called the Chief Manager of Bank from England and informed him that he did not issue any such cheque.  Then the Manager informed him that even before that instance, four cheques had already been cleared from the Complainants’ account. The First Complainant requested the Bank Manager to send him the statement of his account.  However, it was not sent.  On account of this incident the First Complainant had to come from England to Nagpur on 19.03.2012.  He was provided the account statement which showed the following transactions through cheques in his account:-

4.       The first Complainant informed the Bank Manager that all the four original cheques were in his custody. The Bank Manager saw the original cheques and provided him the all details. It was informed that two cheques came for clearing from the Jabalpur Branch of Allahabad Bank (Opposite Party No. 6 in the original Complaint and Respondent No. 3 herein) and the remaining two cheques came for clearing from Raipur Branch of Allahabad Bank.  One Deepak Ganesh Mishra had deposited the said cheques for clearing.  It was stated that since the original cheques bearing the afore-said numbers were still lying with the First Complainant with the cheque book which was with him in United Kingdom, there was no question of clearing of the said cheques by the Bank.  It was clearly apparent that not only the signatures of the First Complainant were forged on the cheques but even the cheques which were presented for clearing were forged.  It was stated that there was some mischief by the officials of the Bank, in as much as only they were aware about the numbers of cheques issued to the Complainant as well as about the sufficient balance which was enough to clear the cheques so issued.  It is stated that when the First Complainant pointed out these things to the Bank he was told that while clearing the payments against the cheques they did not receive the physical cheques and were required to verify an electronic image of the cheque and signatures.  As the cheque numbers coincided with the cheques issued to the First Complainant and the signatures bore resemblance to his signatures the Bank cleared the cheques.  The Manager of the Bank expressed his inability to do anything further in the matter and advised him to lodge a Police Complaint.  First Complainant lodged a Police Complaint on 21.03.2012 at Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur. 

5.       Aggrieved, Complainant filed a Complaint seeking the following directions to the Bank:-

“a) Refund the amount of Rs. 18,45,000/- which has been illegally withdrawn from the account of the Complainant at the behest of the officials of the bank and towards actual losses sustained because of the misuse of afore-said cheques and interest of 18% p.a. from the date of illegal withdrawal.

b) Rs. 4,00,000/- towards the other expenses incurred to the complainant no. 1 for coming from UK for the afore-said illegal withdrawal from the account of the complainant.

c) Rs. 25,00,000/- towards damages on account of mental agony etc.

d) The litigation charges of Rs. 50,000/- and

e) Grant any other relief deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

6.       The Bank filed their Written Version taking the Preliminary Objection that the subject matter needs a thorough investigation and hence cannot be tried in a summary procedure by the Consumer Forum.  On merits, the Bank denied all the averments made by the Complainants.  It was stated that if the statement of the account of the Complainants is perused carefully it can be seen that the two cheques bearing No. 789769 and 789775 were missing and the Complainants have not stated a single word regarding the said cheques.  It was further stated that the original cheque book was with the Complainants and there is every possibility that they themselves would have created duplicate cheques to gain a huge illegal amount. 

7.       We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8.       The facts not in dispute that the Bank had issued a cheque book in April, 2011 bearing No. 789761 to 789780 with respect to the Savings Bank Account of the Complainants, who are the husband and wife and held a joint account. It is also not in dispute that cheque numbers 789780, 789779, 789778 and 789777 for an amount of ₹4,30,000/-, ₹4,95,000/-, ₹4,70,000/- and ₹4,50,000/- were cleared by the Bank on 01.02.2012, 04.02.2012, 09.02.2012 and 15.02.2012, respectively.

9.       Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Bank vehemently argued that the subject matter is with respect to forgery and hence it involves elaborate evidence and complicated question of facts and law which can be only adjudicated by a Civil Court and therefore submitted that the Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint. Learned Counsel relied on the judgement of this Commission in Safe Home Developers and Contractors Vs. Samata Sahakari Bank Ltd., IV (2012) CPJ 729 (NC)  and P.N. Khanna Vs. Bank of India, II(2015) CPJ 54 (NC) in support of her case.

10.     Both the aforenoted judgements which the learned Counsel relied on are with respect to theft and forgery. In the instant case, it is the question of deficiency of service by the Bank in clearing the cheques, without verifying the signatures and also the printing error on the cheques and not theft and forgery alone. Hence, the aforenoted judgements cannot be said to be squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. At this juncture, we find it a fit case to place reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court inter-alia observed as under:-

“Further, under the Act the National Commission is required to be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the State Commission is required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge.  They are competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts.  Hence, it would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of experts is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the Civil Court.

It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings.  In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided.  Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court.  For trial to be just and reasonable long drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary.  It should be kept in mind that legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground.  It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided.  The Act provides sufficient safeguards.”

(Emphasis supplied)

11.     Hence, we hold that the Complaint is maintainable and Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to entertain a Complaint with respect to deficiency of service against a Bank.

12.     It is the case of the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank that since the cheque book was lying with the first Complainant, it is the Complainants, who have to answer with respect to how duplicate cheques with the same cheque numbers were issued. At this juncture, on a pointed query from the Bench to the learned Counsel for the Bank to produce  the original cheques, it was stated that they were not in a position to produce the same. The second Complainant, who was present in person, submitted that even in the lower fora, it was the submission of the Bank that the cheques could not be traced as they were eaten by white ants and that despite repeated requests from the Complainants the said cheques were never produced.

13.     It is the case of the Bank that the cheques produced by the Complainants were forged and instead of the word ‘Ramdaspeth’, ‘Randaspeth’ was printed on the cheque leaves in the book. The State Commission has given a finding that a minor printing error is not sufficient to substantiate the argument that the cheque book in the possession of the Complainants is a forged one particularly when all other details such as serial number of the cheques, account number and details including the official logo of the Canara Bank is printed on each cheque leaf. On a perusal of the relevant cheque numbers of the cheque book lying with the Complainant, we are of the considered view that the cheque book issued to the Complainants is indeed genuine, specially keeping  in view the fact that some of the cheques from the same cheque book  from serial number 789761 to 789774 were already honoured. It is also an admitted fact that from the same cheque book a cheque towards maintenance of the society building, where the Complainant was having a flat was also honoured and therefore contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank that the cheque book of the Complainants is forged, is untenable. There are no substantial reasons given by the Bank to have not taken any steps when there was a printing error on the cheques.

14.     It is also an admitted fact that an FIR was lodged by the Complainants on 21.03.2012 with respect to the said dispute. On 24.03.2012, the Complainants also got issued a legal  notice to the Bank calling upon them to pay the amount of ₹18,45,000/-, which is the actual loss sustained on account of the misuse of the aforenoted cheques together with compensation and costs. A perusal of the legal notice shows that on 20.03.2012, the Bank Manager informed the first Complainant that one more cheque was presented at Gwalior, which evidences that a third party had got the cheques printed with the same cheque numbers of the cheque book, which was allotted to the Complainants, hence viewed from any angle the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank that the original cheque book with the Complainants is forged and that they themselves have created the duplicate cheques cannot be accepted.

15.     Vide order dated 30.08.2019, there was a direction to the learned Counsel for the Bank to produce the original cheques bearing number 789761 to 789774, which were cleared, but the same were not produced even on the next date of hearing. When substantial amount of money was withdrawn at short intervals from the Saving Bank Account of the Complainants, the act of the Bank in clearing the cheques, without verifying the signatures and then coming up with a plea that the Complainants themselves have forged the cheque is completely unsustainable and amounts to deficiency of service. We do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order of the State Commission in allowing the cheque amounts together with reasonable interest @ 6% p.a. Hence, this Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

16.     The statutory deposit shall stand transferred to the Complainant with accrued interest, if any.